My Twitter Feed

October 2, 2014

Mudflats Chats: Sen Candidate Mark Fish (L)

brianmarkfish

Alaska Libertarian Senate Candidate Mark Fish, and Brian the Mudflats Moose

Mark Fish is one of three Libertarian candidates running for the U.S Senate seat currently held by Democrat Mark Begich. We sat down and talked about libertarianism, the Republican field, the Republican field, abortion, mining, and corporate personhood among other things. Grab a cup of coffee, and sit in!

Libertarian Philosophy

JEANNE DEVON:
I guess I’ll start off with a philosophical question because sometimes I think it’s difficult, especially in today’s world where everything and everyone is so interconnected, to make a case for libertarianism.

MARK FISH:
It is difficult.

DEVON: Because we’re interconnected people, and the actions of an individual as we’ve seen in terror attacks, or corporations as we see now with the Polley mine disaster in British Columbia that is affecting our salmon, our jobs, our people, Alaska’s environment, and our economy – all of these things. It affects our sense of well-being in the world. And so where do you think Libertarianism fits into the grand scheme of society and its interconnection?

FISH: Well, I think it fits very well because first off, it’s rooted in classical liberalism – that’s what they used to call it. If you look at Thomas Paine’s writing, he doesn’t say that we shouldn’t interact with each other or take care of the social issues that come up. That’s not the case. We just disagree that the government should be the one that manages that. We believe that society should manage the social issues and that we’re much better at it. Like Thomas Paine said in Common Sense, he talks about society being where good happens, where people of good will get together and collaborate and make things happen, whereas government knows one thing, and that’s force. And sometimes there’s a justification for force, and that should be very limited. And I think that’s the difference we get, especially with progressives and liberals. Their view is that government is the source of good in the world, and libertarians would say we’re better off managing our own affairs and collaborating with each other for the good of society.

The Polley Mine Disaster

DEVON: Well, let me get back to the Polley mine. How then do you handle that? Because certainly you have a collective of good-hearted, good-minded people who are now kind of screwed. And a corporation whose purpose and whose mandate is profit, and whose mandate is not necessarily the good of the people. So, who regulates that?

FISH: Well, as you can see, local governments regulated that and they didn’t do a very good job, did they? And that’s the problem that we have. It’s corporations getting larger and more powerful than the government that is supposed to be protecting the people’s rights, and in fact they are partners in that government, and instead of being for the people it’s for the corporations and their profit-minded interest. A libertarian perspective on that, and it’s kind of simple really, is that it’s property rights. Nobody wants to damage their own property, and even a corporation wants to extract the maximum possible profit from their property, so they should be good caretakers of that property. Now what happens in the case of Polley Creek where they have this spill… obviously somebody fell asleep at the switch, and those things are going to happen, and when they do happen, what’s the recourse? The recourse is what you do on your property affects you, you’re responsible for it. You can’t transfer it like they did with Flint Hills to some other owner. You have to clean up your own mess. And I think that’s where we get in trouble with limited liability corporations. Transferring your damages as a seller, unknown, is just a terrible situation.

DEVON: And that part is sort of Kindergarten 101 – clean up your own mess. There aren’t going to be too many people who argue about that. But sometimes, it can’t be cleaned up.

FISH: We’ve got to make sure these people are liable for the problems they create, and not just able to pass them on.

DEVON: But that’s government in some way, saying that you have to be responsible.

FISH: Well sure, it’s a civil damage. It’s a court case. There are people who have been hurt, and you can say that since it spilled over into the commons and damaged a common resource, we all got a chunk of that damage. And the big thing is not allowing these corporations to get away with it. And the fact that they have gotten away with it encourages the kind of behavior you see with Polley Creek.

The Alaska Senate Candidates

DEVON: Is there one Republican Senate candidate who you secretly want to win that primary? And I guess it goes to this… People say that Alaska “has a wide Libertarian streak.” You hear that all the time. Whether it’s the left, or the right, Alaskans just want to do their thing. They don’t care about your business, they don’t want you to care about their business. They want to just come here to live a life of freedom, and independence that meshes with the libertarian philosophy in a lot of ways. So then, I’m looking at these Senate candidates, and I want to know where they fall on your spectrum. Who’s the closest to you, and who’s the furthest away?

FISH: If I was going to rate all the candidates, obviously I’d rate myself first, Joe Miller would come in second, I think Treadwell would come in third, and in fourth place I have to give it a tie to both Sullivan and Begich. They would both be on the bottom of my list. In a sense, I would like to see myself and Sullivan and Begich be at that debate.

DEVON: You’re saying that would be the best way to distinguish yourself?

FISH: I could just hammer them. And nothing would be better for Libertarians than to have that conversation. They are all going for the base, they’re all sounding very similar, but I think I agree with you that Joe Miller is probably the closest to libertarianism of the three.

And the thing is, he actually listens to us. And he can say Mark, I disagree and I’m not going there, and ok that’s one thing. And then we move on to things we can agree on. But I know Libertarians would have influence on him if he ever got to that position.

DEVON: And you’ve not had luck with the other two in listening to you, and the concerns of the party?

FISH: Not really. No. I mean, Sullivan is non-existent, and Treadwell says he wants to hear our concerns, and he’s a very shrewd politician. His agenda is set, and he has his objectives that he wants to meet. He’s about building coalitions to move his agenda forward, it’s just not our agenda. There may be some agreements and some things we can deal with him on, but others… it’s just a bridge too far. I will say about Joe, too, that the biggest difference I have with him is a religious one. He’s a deep-seeded evangelical Christian who believes in an act of God. My basis… religion is based on my family heritage that goes back to Rhode Island it’s a matter of conscience. The first tablet is God’s and the second tablet is man’s. I’m not going to legislate what they say is morality, and I say conscience is a better term for that. And you can’t. A person’s conscience is theirs. Like the abortion thing. I’m pro-life, but a pro-life Libertarian is a long way from a pro-life conservative.

Women’s Issues – VAWA, Equality, Abortion

DEVON: Well, define that then, because that was going to be one of my questions down the road because Sullivan and Treadwell are getting hammered on their issues about women. They were asked if they would have voted for the Violence Against Women Act as a Senator from a state that has horrible domestic violence, horrible rape statistics. It’s not a good state, statistically, to be a woman. And neither one of them would say they would support it, and they’ve been under fire for that. So, where do you stand on that?

FISH: Frankly, I haven’t looked at that act enough to make a decision on that particular, but I don’t view women’s issues as different than men’s issues. It kind of gets me in trouble sometimes, but we’re all the same really. I come from a pioneer family where Mama’s with the axe chopping wood and Dad’s out there plowing. It’s a co-managed relationship of equal duties, and equal responsibilities. This subservient thing only happens after wars with all this post-traumatic stress, and these soldiers come back and try to fit themselves into a world that women have been running in their absence, and it creates this friction that we’re still trying to get over to this day. But it’s not the natural state of men and women. The natural state of men and women is an equal because that’s how we survived. Everybody knows, a woman can kill you in your sleep, and you have to sleep. So, if you want to survive you have to be nice. There are plenty of kings in history who have learned that lesson the hard way.

DEVON: We were sneaky. We used poison and stuff. None of those duels at first light.

FISH: It’s good to get along.

DEVON: So explain to me the difference, because you said there’s a difference between a pro-life Libertarian and a pro-life conservative.

FISH: Well, I can speak for this pro-life libertarian. I’m pro-life, and I really value life as a gift, and I think women have got a magical quality that allows them a special privilege that no other has. And not to respect that, even if it’s an accident, it’s a wonderful accident. So, I would really like to foster that environment where that life is treated as special. Now as far as choice, I understand it’s a matter of conscience. Social conservatives think that they can pass a law banning abortions and that’s going to stop abortions, and it won’t. But it will create more damage and more harm to society.

DEVON: So, then you’re pro-life personally, but believe that it should be an individual choice?

FISH: Well, I think women have to make that choice, and I would do everything I could to encourage them to choose life.

DEVON: You were just talking about “accidents.” But it isn’t always “an accident.” There are situations of rape, and incest, and these fall into a different category. And I think the three Republican candidates at this point are distinguishing themselves within a very narrow spectrum. They are all very close, and they range between “all abortion should be illegal” and another one said, “well if the mother and the baby are BOTH going to die then ok, but if it’s just the mom then too bad.”

FISH: We’re really splitting hairs there, aren’t we.

DEVON: Not only splitting hairs, but from my perspective very extreme positions. So, where do you fall on that spectrum?

FISH: I would fall in a position that most Libertarians do, where both pro-choice and pro-life people are uncomfortable with us. Because we try to reason this out, and it’s an emotional debate. But I think when reasonable people sit down. Even under Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court weighed in and recognized that there is life inside the womb.

DEVON: Right. And they drew a line, which we’ve had between could the fetus survive on its own, or could it not.

FISH: And I believe we’ve gotten a lot of technology since then that could move that line down if we reviewed it today. So, where do we go? Ultimately it is a woman’s choice and responsibility. That’s just a fact.

DEVON: So, you’re like a pro-choice-pro-life Libertarian.

FISH: How about that. I can get everybody to hate me now, right? (laughs)

DEVON: I think that most people can respect someone who is pro-life in their own beliefs, with their own family, and their own body if they’re a woman, but recognizes that there are circumstances and situations of which you can’t fathom being in. I would hope people could respect that – a personal decision versus what someone would dictate in society to other people.

FISH: The thing about making something illegal that you have to ask is will it work. And will it create more harm than good. And that’s a simple test. An outright ban on abortion won’t do that, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t want to stop all abortions, or all unnecessary abortions. I do.

DEVON: Oh, so let me ask you about this. Did you hear of the new statistic from Colorado? This is really interesting. So, there was a private donor who said for the next four years, all birth control either in the form of an IUD, or an implant – long-term birth control – to anyone who wants it for free. Because those can cost from $500 to $2000. So teen abortion rate in the four years since this started has dropped by 36%. So I’m thinking wow, the pro-life side is going to be excited because… hello!… abortion is down 36%! And the pro-choice side will be exited too, because nobody wants to have an abortion. Good news for everyone because nobody wants the system to have to support single teen moms, unwanted babies… it seemed to me like a win-win. But the evangelical side said no, this isn’t good because now you’re giving a permission slip for teenagers to just run amok and do whatever they want.

FISH: Like you can control teenage hormones in the first place.

DEVON: Yeah, good luck.

FISH: But I really would wish to end abortions.

DEVON: Everyone wishes that. A third of all women by the age of 45 have had one, but it’s not something anyone wishes for.

FISH: And I think that’s the tie that could bind us if it wasn’t for the Democrats and the Republicans making these two polarized things. Like saying “I’m pro-life” and then immediately get assaulted by someone who is pro-choice and it becomes irrational, pigeon hole in the box, and we can’t talk anymore. And the other side does it too.

Running as a Third Party Candidate, and Why?

DEVON: So, you’ve been accused at some point, I’m sure, of being “the spoiler” and of siphoning votes off – and if you use your scale from before, it would be from Joe Miller first, since he’s the most libertarian of the three. It’s a Ralph Nader situation, it’s a Bill Walker for governor situation. Anyone who runs outside the two party system, even though most people hate the two party system, and they’ll grumble about it – and yet the person who actually does something about it is often criticized for it.

FISH: Yeah. We’re the “thieves.”

DEVON: So what is your answer to people who say you’re not helping, and you’re just splitting the vote? Why are you doing this?

FISH: Well, there’s a couple things that come into play here. One is Colonel John Boyd. He did a paper on destruction and creation that points out that natural laws apply to political laws as well. And there’s a second law of thermodynamics that says any time you are trying to change a system from within, it leads to chaos and destruction, and out of that chaos and destruction you can get change. But it’s very traumatic.

DEVON: And people don’t like change for the most part.

FISH: And that chaos and destruction can get a lot done. You can see that in the Republican Party now. They’re trying to change internally and you can see the devastation it’s causing.

But there’s another way of changing, and that’s being outside the system, and applying pressure to it to get it to move in the direction you want. And Libertarians are outside of the Democrat-Republican system and they want candidates, and debates to apply pressure on uncomfortable positions for the two other parties and get them to move in the direction that we want. And so in essence, we’re a very small party, and a very small part of the process, but we do get to help steer the ship on to the right course. They own the ship, but we’ve got our hand on the wheel. It’s so polarized on the other sides, and I think that’s the way we can play.

As far as stealing votes goes, if you look at it, there hasn’t been a person elected by a majority of votes in a very long time. We’ve got 40% of the registered voters, and above that we’ve got 11,000 people who qualify to register to vote who aren’t even registered. So, we’ve got all those people who don’t participate in the process because they say why? They don’t see any change, they don’t see any difference – it’s all politics, and they just put it aside. But I think the role of the Libertarians is to get their vote those people. And it’s proven in Virginia Libertarian candidate and he’s credible and he got 13% away from the Republican. But if you look at that, what it actually showed was that it generated more interest in the race, so there was a higher percentage of votes for the other candidates as well as the people voting for the Libertarian.

DEVON: Well, I think it becomes harder to say, “Oh, they’re all the same,” if they’re not all the same.

FISH: It does. And I think that’s the role we could play. The powers that align against the people and corrupting our government are so, so good at it that without a push and a nudge at it from somebody outside that system, it’s just not going to change.

The Question Everyone Else Asks

DEVON: Ok, so are you a secret placeholder for Joe Miller? I only ask because you told me that’s the first thing everyone else wants to know.

FISH: I’m well-honed on it. No, I’m not. In fact, I’d love to be in on that debate as well, so I could highlight differences. Certainly if I had my choices in the three of us, Joe still comes in as my second choice. But I would make a strong case for myself. And I do have things that these other guys don’t. And if the world was the way that it should be, guys like me would be Senators. You know, that’s my view. A Harvard or Yale degree to go down to Washington DC to represent Alaskans, when 80% of them have a high school education or less?

DEVON: Well, Mark Begich doesn’t have a college degree.

FISH: Yeah. And in fact, I’ve got a lot in common with Mark. He’s got three months more in Alaska than I do. And I’ve been here most of my life, and involved in the community, and I’ve been to villages I don’t even know the names of. I’ve seen the entire state of Alaska from 2000 feet flying VFR. I understand these real things that these other don’t have the experience for. And I think that gets missed because I’m “just a minor candidate” and “just a spoiler.”

DEVON: So when debates happen after the primary, would you, if you are the nominee, be invited to participate in these debates?

FISH: Well, Begich has already said, for his own reasons of course, that he wants all parties to be involved in these debates. I’m not sure the Republicans would want to agree. They wouldn’t want to provide that contrast. But I want to be in all those debates.

DEVON: I think it would be great.

The riots in Ferguson, and the militarizing of the police

DEVON: I wanted to ask your take on something that’s very much in the news right now. We’ve all seen the rioting happening in Ferguson, Missouri over the shooting death of Michael Brown, an unarmed teenager at the hands of the police. The response has been surprising to many people, the riot gear, the tear gas, the armored vehicles. And people have been discussing how this happened, and why the police have this equipment.

FISH: Well, it’s called the 1033 program, and it transfers military surplus hardware to local police departments, and a lot of that hardware is not compatible with good policing, but they find uses for it because it justifies budgets. And any bureaucrat knows that the more stuff you have, the more you have to manage, and the higher the pay scale, so that kind of mentality is encouraged.

DEVON: And the other thing is, not to diminish what is going on, but if you get a cool new toy, you don’t want to let it sit on the shelf, you want to use it. And you can feel like it’s functional and useful and it makes it easy to use it when it might not otherwise be appropriate.

FISH: Right. You might end up using it for a mission it’s not suited for.

I had a run in with a St. Louis beat cop when I was on leave from the military once, and I’m there in dog tags and he walked in and had a conversation with me at the café down from the hotel. And here’s this nice cop – as nice as can be – and it was not until he left that I understood that he was questioning me on a robbery that had happened down the street. He was that good at his job and that knowledgeable of his neighborhood. He actually knew that, hey, this guy’s out of place, let’s see what he’s about. And he did it in such a non-threatening way that I didn’t even understand what was going on. And that’s how police departments should work. They have to interact with the community, they’ve got to be part of the community they serve. And I hate to say it but an Andy Griffith is better than a Barney Fife with a tank, you know?

DEVON: Yeah. And they were arresting people in McDonald’s and harassing journalists, and all the tear gas… I was looking online, and I saw a photo montage and thought it was somewhere in the Middle East, and then I was like, oh this is in the Midwest!

FISH: And they’ve done studies on this. They know this phenomenon happens. When you put people in uniform, they have a tendency to bunch and get defensive. That’s the nature of being in uniform. And then you give them the shield of authority and they feel they can act with impunity.

DEVON: And then if you give them the tools of war…

FISH: Yeah, and you give them the tools of war, and who’s not saying that this is a bad thing? But the 1033 program I would make go away. There are better uses for that military surplus.

Federal Land Transfer, Uncle Sugar, and Corporate Personhood

FISH: One of the things that’s coming up that nobody is talking about is the transfer of federal land into state title. You know, you talk about all that dependency and all the harm that’s going on in Alaska. A lot of it is fueled by alcohol. I looked at the map and I did this overlay of deaths caused by alcohol in the United States including Alaska, and the amount of federal land owned in each of those states and you take the transparency and fold it over on each other and they’re identical. There’s a reason things happen, and it’s because people are dependent. When you are dependent on government, that translates into alcohol dependency. We can see it in the failed Soviet Union. When people don’t have the ability to operate independently in their lives, then they become dependent on somebody else for their sustenance, and it creates a state of despair that—– are suffering from.

And if we get ahold of our own resources in the state, the people of the state want to focus on their own governance more than they are now, and stop looking for Big Daddy in Washington to bail them out.

DEVON: Uncle Sugar?

FISH: Uncle Sugar. And I think we get a better state government out of the deal too, and more eyes focused on that, and more local control. I’ve got a lot of statistics, and folks in Utah who are light years ahead of us on this issue that show that environmentally, economically, states manage their resources much better than the federal government does, and much more cost effectively. And they actually turn those resources into good use.

DEVON: The only snag in that for me would be situations like Pebble Mine, or Polley Creek, or oil production where you have population-wise a very small state, very few people, very large space that is trying to regulate and keep in line corporations that are obscenely powerful, with endless financial resources. It seems, even though I’m all about the idea of local control, at some point in those situations, local control crumbles in the face of these behemoth, monster corporations that don’t have our best interests at heart, and the politicians who can be bought by them. It’s a problem.

FISH: It is a problem, and it’s a problem with law, and the fact is that these corporations have been breaking the laws. It’s not our elected officials, it’s not our politicians, the representation we get – it’s the corporations who come here and

DEVON: Here’s two thousand bucks. Wink, wink.

FISH: “What’s good for General Motors is good for the USA,” you know? I remember that line from Little Abner, a long time ago. And it fits it in a nutshell. There are people in this world who if it’s good for them, “it’s the right thing to do.” And they think they’ve got the moral authority to impose it on everyone else. And I think these corporations are just like that. And we have to get rid of the concept. I’m the one candidate other than Begich who signed the We the People pledge that says individuals are people and not corporations.

DEVON: Isn’t that funny. Mark and Mark on the same side.

FISH: Yup, we are the only ones that signed that. We need to take that back. It’s a terrible decision, it’s a terrible direction. It’s not what the founders wanted. You cannot have a collective right. It’s the first time ever where I have seen that rights belong to a collective. If you give rights to a collective, you have to take them from individuals. There’s no way around it. And every document I’ve seen from the Age of Enlightenment that spawned all these geniuses who framed our Constitution – every single one of those documents talked about individual rights, because it was a transfer from the Pope, to Henry the Eighth and the right of kings, and then ultimately the right of the people. And this was the evolution of Western civilization… who has the authority that’s given to them from God? And the answer is everyone as individuals.

DEVON: The answer isn’t General Electric? It’s not Shell?

FISH: No.

DEVON: So what about the whole “money is speech” thing? Because I can see if corporations are people then money is speech, but…

FISH: I think a fool and his money are easily parted, and if they want to spend an extra $20 million on Sullivan’s campaign then fine. It doesn’t buy him any more influence. As long as you have transparency, it’s considered a corporate economic stimulus.

DEVON: Well, there’s something you can thank Democrats for… that little message on political ads telling you who the top donors are.

FISH: (laughs) Yup, that’s transparency. I’m an open source guy.

Proposition 1 – Repeal of SB21

DEVON: So, let’s talk about the ballot measures. How are you going to vote?

FISH: The first one’s tough. I’ve got friends on both sides of the issue, and whatnot. As a libertarian I believe anything we can do to reduce the take to the government and leave it in the hands of the private sector is good.

DEVON: But in this case, we’re kind of like the private sector. I hate to use the hackneyed expression but it is “our oil.” We are an owner state, so it’s our resource as people.

FISH: And I understand Alaska’s unique constitution, and it doesn’t really fit into libertarian philosophy. But I understand it’s there, and that we have to work with it. That’s the trouble that I get into. And I think oil tax policy has been convoluted from the beginning of it. A libertarian perspective would have been, it’s our oil, it’s in the ground, how much are you going to pay us for it? You’d cut the deal up front, and take your royalties and that’s the end of it. And the deal up front has to be a good deal for the state. But to change things every five years becomes a game of lawyers, and advantage, and disadvantage, and who’s going to win that game? The ones with the best lawyers, and who do you think they are? You alluded to it.

DEVON: Big oil.

FISH: Yeah. If we would have cut a simple deal up front, something that both parties could agree on, and stuck with those royalties we would have been fine.

DEVON: So yes or no?

FISH: I am going to vote no on this one because of one reason, because I think it puts them on the hook. They’re making big promises, and there will be a short period of time to see if those promises come true or not. And if they fail, if they fail to produce on this, then it’s going to change the clock on them for a long time.

DEVON: So then we’ll have something else, other than ACES to come and replace it…

Absolutely. I mean, we’re not locked into these things. It’s a matter of law that the legislature can do.

DEVON: So what do you think about ACES hasn’t worked then?

FISH: (pauses) Well… what hasn’t worked about ACES?

DEVON: Yeah.

FISH: I think it was working fine.

DEVON: So, this is the thing that drives me crazy! If ACES was working fine, and then now it’s changed, but the people who supported that change are saying we can’t have change all the time. So now we’ll take this new thing, and we don’t know if it’s going to work, that just replaced the thing we know was working, and we’re going to be mad at the people who did ACES in to begin with even though they never wanted to change it. Not substantively anyway…

FISH: It’s a PR campaign. If you don’t like the deal, then you call for stability.

DEVON: I know! And it’s like, hey… you guys are the ones who ruined the stability in the first place.

FISH: Yeah. “We need a stable environment!”

DEVON: I think you’re going to vote yes. I think you’re going to get in the booth, and you’re going to think of this, and you’re going to fill in that little yes oval.

FISH: Well, like I said… I think it’s not that big of an issue, and we can revisit this. And I think if the Big 3 gets what they want, it really puts the onus on them to produce. If after the election there’s no more investment happens, we can change it.

Proposition 2 – Regulating marijuana like alcohol

FISH: Of course, yes. But I’ve got to put a caveat on that. I look at the bill, and there are some things in it I don’t like. But there’s three things you can do with marijuana. You can prohibit it, you can regulate it, and you can legalize it. Libertarians want it legal. But I don’t like the profit margin. Everyone who wants it should be able to grow their own, trade it with everybody. I’d like to see the cash idea out of the system.

DEVON: I actually asked about this, and the way that it’s set up – of course there is the commercial aspect of it – but it actually expands the rights that people currently have. Because right now, you can have it in your home, and you can grow it in your home but whatever you use to start that setup, you have to become a criminal to do it.

FISH: Right, it’s illegal to transport it.

DEVON: And it’s illegal to trade it, or bring it anywhere. But the law would change that.

FISH: We’ve got to get rid of prohibition. On the federal level, one of the first things I would do is sponsor legislation to remove marijuana from the Class 1 narcotics list. It has no business being there, and it’s created an immigration problem, and created narco-states that are coming back to haunt us now because of our demand for a product that should be legal, but is illegal and creating misery all over the world. It just doesn’t make sense. So, prohibition has never worked, we should never have it, and I view this regulation as a reasonable step toward ultimate legalization.

Proposition 3, Raising the minimum wage

DEVON: Prop 3, yea or nay?

Free markets. Libertarians are the free market side. An employer and an employee have a right to make any kind of contract they wish.

Proposition 4, the Save Bristol Bay initiative

DEVON: Prop 4, where the legislature would have to vote on large mining operations like Pebble.

FISH: You know what? I’m in flux on that. I like the idea of going to our government to make these heavy decisions, and I wish there was a little more faith in the administration, and the DEC. Frankly I think there needs to be, and if there’s not, then we have more problems than we think. If we have a DEC that’s not out for Alaska’s best interest, then we need a new DEC. But you might want to talk to the governor about that…

DEVON: Oh, I’ve got a lot of things I want to talk to the governor about. (laughs) So, undecided on that one still?

FISH: Yeah. I have to say I am. But this Polley Creek thing…

DEVON: Did you know that the people that designed that dam that collapsed are the same ones involved in Pebble? And the one at Pebble is much bigger.

FISH: And my first response after seeing that 30 minute video was – this ends Pebble. And I think it does. Because the whole argument is “we have the technology and we can do it better,” and if these guys that are designing this are the same guys behind this one that failed then I think that argument goes away.

DEVON: I do too. Well, I want to thank you for taking the time to talk. I’ve enjoyed it.

FISH: Me too. And thanks!

Mark Fish for Senate campaign website.

Mark Fish for Senate Facebook page.

 

Comments

comments

Comments
8 Responses to “Mudflats Chats: Sen Candidate Mark Fish (L)”
  1. mike from iowa says:

    BTW- as far as korporate amerika being good citizens,in Chicago the koch bros refine tar sands and a by product called pet-coke(granular stuff that looks like coal and
    causes lung problems) stored in massive open piles and blows all over. Chicago wants the piles covered. The koch bros want to expand the piles and if not given clearance have threatened to tie up Chicago in the courts for years to come. Nice guys,what?

  2. mike from iowa says:

    If this guy thinks “Big Awl” will do right by Alaskans because they get all this money back and that will force korporate responsibility,I have a large expansion bridge in the middle of an iowa cornfield to sell him.

  3. Jeanne Devon says:

    Thanks, everyone! Glad you enjoyed it. :)

  4. John says:

    Great interview. I like Mark Fish. You can disagree with him without him calling you names. I do think he misunderstands the second law of thermodynamics, but that is just a quibble.

  5. Alaska Pi says:

    Thank you Mr Fish!
    I pretty much disagree with Mr Fish and the libertarian right on just about everything but am always interested to hear what people think. (As a lifelong member of the far left libertarian way of seeing the world, I see lil goodies like “property rights” way differently )
    And thank you Ms AKM.
    I’m with AKMagpie in commending your interview skills and so appreciate that you talk to a broad variety of folks.

  6. DaveO says:

    Thank you.

  7. Zyxomma says:

    From the above: DEVON: Did you know that the people that designed that dam that collapsed are the same ones involved in Pebble? And the one at Pebble is much bigger … AND IN A SEISMICALLY VERY ACTIVE AREA.
    FIFY.

  8. AKMagpie says:

    Great interview, Jeanne! You have people skills in spades -and The Donald can’t Trump that. Tee hee, just couldn’t resist. I am serious about the interview skills, though. When will Meet the Press realize they have the wrong moderator?

Leave A Comment

%d bloggers like this: